Animal Welfare Factors Related to Beef Standard: a review
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33448/rsd-v10i16.23847Keywords:
Animal welfare; Mortis rigor; Beef; Slaughter.Abstract
The present study aims to provide an understanding of the relationship between animal welfare conditions prior to slaughter and meat quality based on a literature review. For this, a literature search was carried out using the following keywords: Welfare, Animal Welfare, Pre-slaughter, Beef, Meat Quality. From the beginning of the 21st century it was possible to observe a growing increase in research on the subject, this is due to the fact that animal welfare is increasingly related to animal stress, metabolism during rigor mortis - responsible for the conversion of muscle tissue into consumable meat, so consequently end consumers are increasingly demanding in this regard. In the post-slaughter period of cattle, meat quality defects may appear, known as PSE (pale, soft, exudative) and DFD (dark, firm, dry), associated with an abnormal pH of the meat. Animal welfare is closely linked from the creation of animals to the pre-slaughter stage of meat. From the study carried out, it is possible to define the need for further research to assess methods of preventing stress during pre-slaughter.
References
Adzitey, F., Teye, G. A., & Dinko, M. M. (2011). Pre and post-slaughter animal handling by butchers in the Bawku Municipality of the Upper East Region of Ghana. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 23, 1-8.
Agus, A., & Widi, T. S. M. (2018). Current situation and future prospects for beef cattle production in Indonesia—A review. Asian-Australasian journal of animal sciences, 31, 976.
Blanchette, A. (2020). Porkopolis: American animality, standardized life, and the factory farm. Duke University Press Books.
Blokhuis, H. J., Keeling, L. J., Gavinelli, A., & Serratosa, J. (2008). Animal welfare's impact on the food chain. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 19, S79-S87.
Bonneau, M., & Lebret, B. (2010). Production systems and influence on eating quality of pork. Meat science, 84, 293-300.
Buller, H., Blokhuis, H., Jensen, P., & Keeling, L. (2018). Towards farm animal welfare and sustainability. Animals, 8, 81.
Doores, S. (2005). Organic acids. Food Science and Technology-New York-Marcel Dekker, 145, 91.
Farouk, M. M., Al-Mazeedi, H. M., Sabow, A. B., Bekhit, A. E. D., Adeyemi, K. D., Sazili, A. Q., & Ghani, A. (2014). Halal and kosher slaughter methods and meat quality: A review. Meat Science, 98, 505-519.
Ferguson, D. M., & Warner, R. D. (2008). Have we underestimated the impact of pre-slaughter stress on meat quality in ruminants? Meat science, 80, 12-19.
Fernandes, J. N., Hemsworth, P. H., Coleman, G. J., & Tilbrook, A. J. (2021). Costs and Benefits of Improving Farm Animal Welfare. Agriculture, 11, 104.
Gallo, C. B., & Huertas, S. M. (2016). Main animal welfare problems in ruminant livestock during preslaughter operations: a South American view. Animal, 10, 357-364.
Grandin, T. (2010). Auditing animal welfare at slaughter plants. Meat Science, 86, 56-65.
Greger, M. (2007). The long haul: risks associated with livestock transport. Biosecurity and bioterrorism: biodefense strategy, practice, and science, 5, 301-312.
Hultgren, J. (2018). Is livestock transport a necessary practice? Mobile slaughter and on-farm stunning and killing before transport to slaughter. CAB Reviews, 13, 1-15.
Hultgren, J., Segerkvist, K. A., Berg, C., Karlsson, A. H., & Algers, B. (2020). Animal handling and stress-related behaviour at mobile slaughter of cattle. Preventive veterinary medicine, 177, 104959.
Iannetti, L., Neri, D., Santarelli, G. A., Cotturone, G., Vulpiani, M. P., Salini, R., & Messori, S. (2020). Animal welfare and microbiological safety of poultry meat: Impact of different at-farm animal welfare levels on at-slaughterhouse Campylobacter and Salmonella contamination. Food Control, 109, 106921.
Khan, A., Mohammad, A. S., & Muhammad, S. (2020). An integrated model of brand experience and brand love for halal brands: survey of halal fast food consumers in Malaysia. Journal of Islamic Marketing, 12, 1492-1520.
Khan, R., Guo, H., Raza, S. H. A., Rahman, A., Ayaz, M., & Linsen, Z. (2018). Halal slaughtering, welfare, and empathy in farm animals: a review. Tropical animal health and production, 50, 1733-1738.
Koknaroglu, H., & Akunal, T. (2013). Animal welfare: An animal science approach. Meat Science, 95, 821-827.
López-Pedrouso, M., Rodríguez-Vázquez, R., Purriños, L., Oliván, M., García-Torres, S., Sentandreu, M. Á., & Franco, D. (2020). Sensory and physicochemical analysis of meat from bovine breeds in different livestock production systems, pre-slaughter handling conditions, and ageing time. Foods, 9, 176.
McIlveen, H., & Buchanan, J. (2001). The impact of sensory factors on beef purchase and consumption. Nutrition & Food Science, 31, 286-292.
Miele, M. (2016). Killing animals for food: How science, religion and technologies affect the public debate about religious slaughter. Food ethics, 1, 47-60.
Nicol, C. J., Caplen, G., Edgar, J., Richards, G., & Browne, W. J. (2011). Relationships between multiple welfare indicators measured in individual chickens across different time periods and environments. Animal Welfare-The UFAW Journal, 20, 133.
Njisane, Y. Z., & Muchenje, V. (2017). Farm to abattoir conditions, animal factors and their subsequent effects on cattle behavioural responses and beef quality—A review. Asian-Australasian journal of animal sciences, 30, 755.
Njoga, U. J., Njoga, E. O., Nwobi, O. C., Abonyi, F. O., Edeh, H. O., Ajibo, F. E., & Guiné, R. P. (2021). Slaughter Conditions and Slaughtering of Pregnant Cows in Southeast Nigeria: Implications to Meat Quality, Food Safety and Security. Foods, 10, 1298.
Pereira, A. S., Shitsuka, D. M., Parreira, F. J., & Shitsuka, R. (2018). Metodologia da pesquisa científica. [eBook]. Santa Maria. Ed. UAB / NTE / UFSM. https://repositorio.ufsm.br/bitstream/handle/1/15824/Lic_Computacao_Metodologia-Pesquisa-Cientifica.pdf?sequence=1.
Rault, J. L., Waiblinger, S., Boivin, X., & Hemsworth, P. (2020). The power of a positive human–animal relationship for animal welfare. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 7, 857.Shahzad, M. A., Jun, D., Noor, G., & Zubair, A. (2020). Causation of halal food consumption in China. Journal of Islamic Marketing, 7, 857.
Stocchi, R., Mandolini, N. A., Marinsalti, M., Cammertoni, N., Loschi, A. R., & Rea, S. (2014). Animal welfare evaluation at a slaughterhouse for heavy pigs intended for processing. Italian journal of food safety, 3, 54-56.
Veissier, I., Butterworth, A., Bock, B., & Roe, E. (2008). European approaches to ensure good animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 113, 279-297.
Wigham, E. E., Butterworth, A., & Wotton, S. (2018). Assessing cattle welfare at slaughter–Why is it important and what challenges are faced?. Meat science, 145, 171-177.
Yenealem, D. G., Yallew, W. W., & Abdulmajid, S. (2020). Food safety practice and associated factors among meat handlers in Gondar Town: a Cross-Sectional. Journal of Environmental and Public Health, 2020, 1-7.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Matheus Campos Castro; Eloize Silva Alves; Bruno Henrique Figueiredo Saqueti; Jéssica Souza Alves; Joice Camila Martins Costa; Andressa Rafaella da Silva Bruni; Zeinab El Hajj Hussein; Giovana Frigo; Oscar Oliveira Santos; Jesui Vergilio Visentainer
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
1) Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
2) Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
3) Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
